The Long, Gentle Slide To American Socialism

[Godboy]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

 

[SAYIT]

Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:

IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.

Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"

When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.

Linda Bowles

The extreme wealthy already have socialism. Why do you find this acceptable, but socialism for the poor is unacceptable?

Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than socialism

It's not even close.

And no, I'm sorry, the "poor" in the US are rich compared to the poor around the world.

The poor in this country are not poor because the rich are rich and vice versa.

It ain't perfect but American capitalism has and continues to provide opportunities that socialism does not and socialists would not.

 

[JGalt]

It's been a bipartisan effort- so that makes it all better.

One thing that has been proven true over time is that both sides have their versions of socialism they will fight to keep

True socialism does not exist in any sector of american life today. social security and medicare are always mentioned as being socialistic, they aren't. We pay into them our entire working lives, the are a prepaid retirement benefit for those who live long enough. Welfare and food stamps are a form of charity managed by the government, not true socialism either.

socialism means that the government controls the means of production of everything we need or use. that has never worked anyplace. if you can give examples where its worked, bring them.

True socialism does not exist in the world today, yet we hear about it all the time.

Can you give any examples of where it has been tried? Even in Valenzuela the government does not control the means of production of everything

True socialism doesn't exist in this world because we've never really had a true socialist government here in the US, right? But we're a better country than the others, so we should try having a true socialist government here. Right?

Isn't that what they say?

Not sure who "they" are, but lots of people say lots of dumb shit.

I contend the closest thing we have to socialism today in this country is the subsides paid to farmers. It is done to control what and how much is grown/raised and to control the prices we all pay at the grocery store.

Farm subsidies still don't meet the definition of socialism. Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production. I am against farm subsidies because as in a capitalist system, businesses should be allowed to thrive or fail on their own volition.

But even though some farmers receive federal funds, the farms are not socially-owned collectives.

 

[gipper]

Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:

IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.

Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"

When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.

Linda Bowles

The extreme wealthy already have socialism. Why do you find this acceptable, but socialism for the poor is unacceptable?

Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than socialism

It's not even close.

And no, I'm sorry, the "poor" in the US are rich compared to the poor around the world.

The poor in this country are not poor because the rich are rich and vice versa.

It ain't perfect but American capitalism has and continues to provide opportunities that socialism does not and socialists would not.

Why do you keep avoiding the question? Why do you support socialism for the 1%, but not for the poor? Are you a classist?

 

[gipper]

Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:

IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.

Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"

When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.

Linda Bowles

The extreme wealthy already have socialism. Why do you find this acceptable, but socialism for the poor is unacceptable?

Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than socialism

It's not even close.

And no, I'm sorry, the "poor" in the US are rich compared to the poor around the world.

LOL. So you believe in socialism for the 1%. Well, at least you’re honest about it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

One thing that has been proven true over time is that both sides have their versions of socialism they will fight to keep

True socialism does not exist in any sector of american life today. social security and medicare are always mentioned as being socialistic, they aren't. We pay into them our entire working lives, the are a prepaid retirement benefit for those who live long enough. Welfare and food stamps are a form of charity managed by the government, not true socialism either.

socialism means that the government controls the means of production of everything we need or use. that has never worked anyplace. if you can give examples where its worked, bring them.

True socialism does not exist in the world today, yet we hear about it all the time.

Can you give any examples of where it has been tried? Even in Valenzuela the government does not control the means of production of everything

True socialism doesn't exist in this world because we've never really had a true socialist government here in the US, right? But we're a better country than the others, so we should try having a true socialist government here. Right?

Isn't that what they say?

Not sure who "they" are, but lots of people say lots of dumb shit.

I contend the closest thing we have to socialism today in this country is the subsides paid to farmers. It is done to control what and how much is grown/raised and to control the prices we all pay at the grocery store.

Farm subsidies still don't meet the definition of socialism. Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production. I am against farm subsidies because as in a capitalist system, businesses should be allowed to thrive or fail on their own volition.

But even though some farmers receive federal funds, the farms are not socially-owned collectives.

That is why I said "the closest thing we have to socialism today". Going by the definition of socialism, no country in the world today meets the definition nor has any in the last 100 years.

Yet we hear all about what socialism did to countries like Valenzuela, though they do not meet the true definition of socialism

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

neither is anything else in this country, yet it is all people like you seem to be able to talk about.

 

[Godboy]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

neither is anything else in this country, yet it is all people like you seem to be able to talk about.

Bernie isnt a socialist?

 

[JGalt]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

neither is anything else in this country, yet it is all people like you seem to be able to talk about.

Of course we talk about it. The leading Democratic Presidential candidate is a Marxist, masquerading as a "Democratic Socialist."

Does anyone really believe that were he elected, he would discard his Marxist hatred for the wealthy, and become a free-market capitalist one-percenter?

 

[SAYIT]

True socialism does not exist in any sector of american life today. social security and medicare are always mentioned as being socialistic, they aren't. We pay into them our entire working lives, the are a prepaid retirement benefit for those who live long enough. Welfare and food stamps are a form of charity managed by the government, not true socialism either.

socialism means that the government controls the means of production of everything we need or use. that has never worked anyplace. if you can give examples where its worked, bring them.

True socialism does not exist in the world today, yet we hear about it all the time.

Can you give any examples of where it has been tried? Even in Valenzuela the government does not control the means of production of everything

True socialism doesn't exist in this world because we've never really had a true socialist government here in the US, right? But we're a better country than the others, so we should try having a true socialist government here. Right?

Isn't that what they say?

Not sure who "they" are, but lots of people say lots of dumb shit.

I contend the closest thing we have to socialism today in this country is the subsides paid to farmers. It is done to control what and how much is grown/raised and to control the prices we all pay at the grocery store.

Farm subsidies still don't meet the definition of socialism. Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production. I am against farm subsidies because as in a capitalist system, businesses should be allowed to thrive or fail on their own volition.

But even though some farmers receive federal funds, the farms are not socially-owned collectives.

That is why I said "the closest thing we have to socialism today". Going by the definition of socialism, no country in the world today meets the definition nor has any in the last 100 years.

Yet we hear all about what socialism did to countries like Valenzuela, though they do not meet the true definition of socialism

Valenzuela was a fabulous pitcher but what happened to Venezuela was merely the result of a no-nonsense application of socialist principles and productivity plummeted. Here's a clue … you can't get a little pregnant.

 

[eagle1462010]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

neither is anything else in this country, yet it is all people like you seem to be able to talk about.

Splitting hairs.............Saying Soicalist programs aren't a slide to Socialism.........while there really isn't a TRUE SOCIALIST country...........except maybe N. Korea to an extent..........there are trends towards Socialism.......................and Marx would say Socialism is only a trend to communism...........

Venezuela seized private property and means of production...........offered the free free free stuff............took it's currency into oblivian.........and as the nation crumbled turned into a Dictatorship................

Social programs were NOT INTENDED IN THE ENUMERATED POWERS FROM THE FEDERAL Gov't under the Founders.......................

The people were to be Governed as locally as possible.........States decide what is best for that State......not the Feds.........so we have gone away from the Constitution and gone EXACTLY where the Founders said we would go.............a path to PERDITION.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

neither is anything else in this country, yet it is all people like you seem to be able to talk about.

Bernie isnt a socialist?

Does he advocate for the collective ownership of all means of production and distribution?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

neither is anything else in this country, yet it is all people like you seem to be able to talk about.

Splitting hairs.............Saying Socialist programs aren't a slide to Socialism.........while there really isn't a TRUE SOCIALIST country...........except maybe N. Korea to an extent..........there are trends towards Socialism.......................and Marx would say Socialism is only a trend to communism...........

Venezuela seized private property and means of production...........offered the free free free stuff............took it's currency into oblivian.........and as the nation crumbled turned into a Dictatorship................

Social programs were NOT INTENDED IN THE ENUMERATED POWERS FROM THE FEDERAL Gov't under the Founders.......................

The people were to be Governed as locally as possible.........States decide what is best for that State......not the Feds.........so we have gone away from the Constitution and gone EXACTLY where the Founders said we would go.............a path to PERDITION.

according to the "definition of socialism" (which I keep getting beat over the head with) there is no such thing as Socialist program in this country. You all cannot have it both ways.

But, I do agree with you about the our government has gone far beyond the enumerated powers for the Fed Govt. But, as long as we as a country keep voting for the duopoly it will only get worse, not better.

 

[Oddball]

One thing that has been proven true over time is that both sides have their versions of socialism they will fight to keep

True socialism does not exist in any sector of american life today. social security and medicare are always mentioned as being socialistic, they aren't. We pay into them our entire working lives, the are a prepaid retirement benefit for those who live long enough. Welfare and food stamps are a form of charity managed by the government, not true socialism either.

socialism means that the government controls the means of production of everything we need or use. that has never worked anyplace. if you can give examples where its worked, bring them.

True socialism does not exist in the world today, yet we hear about it all the time.

Can you give any examples of where it has been tried? Even in Valenzuela the government does not control the means of production of everything

True socialism doesn't exist in this world because we've never really had a true socialist government here in the US, right? But we're a better country than the others, so we should try having a true socialist government here. Right?

Isn't that what they say?

Not sure who "they" are, but lots of people say lots of dumb shit.

I contend the closest thing we have to socialism today in this country is the subsides paid to farmers. It is done to control what and how much is grown/raised and to control the prices we all pay at the grocery store.

Farm subsidies still don't meet the definition of socialism. Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production. I am against farm subsidies because as in a capitalist system, businesses should be allowed to thrive or fail on their own volition.

But even though some farmers receive federal funds, the farms are not socially-owned collectives.

Farm subsidies meet the definition of corporate oligarchy-cun-fascism, seeing as nearly all of them end up in the pockets of the Cargills and ADMs of the nation...It's a variation on socialism with a few extra steps.

 

[The Purge]

After SC, we now have to endure a three-person contest between:
<><> (A) an outright communist radical,
<><> (B) an obviously braindead, impaired. sexual abuser. former VP, and,
<><> (C) a tiny self-important HUGELY NARCISSISTIC billionaire, running to see how much money he can burn through.

 

[SAYIT]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

neither is anything else in this country, yet it is all people like you seem to be able to talk about.

Bernie isnt a socialist?

Does he advocate for the collective ownership of all means of production and distribution?

Ah … so now you are pretending Comrade Bernie isn't all about greasing that slippery socialist slope?

I know you aren't stupid so you must be one who would have us slide there faster. Bernie is your man, Comrade G.

 

[eagle1462010]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

neither is anything else in this country, yet it is all people like you seem to be able to talk about.

Splitting hairs.............Saying Socialist programs aren't a slide to Socialism.........while there really isn't a TRUE SOCIALIST country...........except maybe N. Korea to an extent..........there are trends towards Socialism.......................and Marx would say Socialism is only a trend to communism...........

Venezuela seized private property and means of production...........offered the free free free stuff............took it's currency into oblivian.........and as the nation crumbled turned into a Dictatorship................

Social programs were NOT INTENDED IN THE ENUMERATED POWERS FROM THE FEDERAL Gov't under the Founders.......................

The people were to be Governed as locally as possible.........States decide what is best for that State......not the Feds.........so we have gone away from the Constitution and gone EXACTLY where the Founders said we would go.............a path to PERDITION.

according to the "definition of socialism" (which I keep getting beat over the head with) there is no such thing as Socialist program in this country. You all cannot have it both ways.

But, I do agree with you about the our government has gone far beyond the enumerated powers for the Fed Govt. But, as long as we as a country keep voting for the duopoly it will only get worse, not better.

There are SOCIAL PROGRAMS..........and while still having a democracy and capitalism.............Or for the Common Good..........which WAS NEVER PRESCRIBED by the founders as it is today............

They warned what would happen if we went this path and they are correct.

Bernie wants to take over the Utilities .........not openly but that is exactly what he is saying.....He wants to take over Health Care........Do away with the Insurance companies.............

That is a Gov't take over of portions of our country...........which is a trend to Socialism

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

neither is anything else in this country, yet it is all people like you seem to be able to talk about.

Bernie isnt a socialist?

Does he advocate for the collective ownership of all means of production and distribution?

Ah … so now you are pretending Comrade Bernie isn't all about greasing that slippery socialist slope?

I know you aren't stupid so you must be one who would have us slide there faster. Bernie is your man, Comrade G.

Look, you people need to make up your mind, I got bashed for mentioning something that is not strict socialism, yet you people use the word to mean anything you do not like.

Pick a side, either go by the strict definition or don't.

 

[SAYIT]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

That isnt socialism, numbnuts.

neither is anything else in this country, yet it is all people like you seem to be able to talk about.

Splitting hairs.............Saying Socialist programs aren't a slide to Socialism.........while there really isn't a TRUE SOCIALIST country...........except maybe N. Korea to an extent..........there are trends towards Socialism.......................and Marx would say Socialism is only a trend to communism...........

Venezuela seized private property and means of production...........offered the free free free stuff............took it's currency into oblivian.........and as the nation crumbled turned into a Dictatorship................

Social programs were NOT INTENDED IN THE ENUMERATED POWERS FROM THE FEDERAL Gov't under the Founders.......................

The people were to be Governed as locally as possible.........States decide what is best for that State......not the Feds.........so we have gone away from the Constitution and gone EXACTLY where the Founders said we would go.............a path to PERDITION.

according to the "definition of socialism" (which I keep getting beat over the head with) there is no such thing as Socialist program in this country. You all cannot have it both ways.

But, I do agree with you about the our government has gone far beyond the enumerated powers for the Fed Govt. But, as long as we as a country keep voting for the duopoly it will only get worse, not better.

There are SOCIAL PROGRAMS..........and while still having a democracy and capitalism.............Or for the Common Good..........which WAS NEVER PRESCRIBED by the founders as it is today............

They warned what would happen if we went this path and they are correct.

Bernie wants to take over the Utilities .........not openly but that is exactly what he is saying.....He wants to take over Health Care........Do away with the Insurance companies.............

That is a Gov't take over of portions of our country...........which is a trend to Socialism

Wait … you oppose total gov't control of our healthcare system?

I mean, what could go wrong?

'We don't have time to correct every error': Iowa Democrats vote 26-14 to certify caucus results

 

[Preacher]

Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:

IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.

Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"

When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.

Linda Bowles - Jan 8, 2002

You mean it will be Democratic Socialism for ALL just not the rich elitists and the bankers. Sounds good!